[gblake]

Jim,

This post by me contains a lot of snippets from your two long posts, not because your arguments are the only ones I disagreed with, but because you did a good job of presenting the strong case for the side of this discussion that I disagree with.

Everyone,

In this thread [EDIT] and the related ones [/EDIT] what I see over, and over again is: Robot, Robot, Robot, Robot, Win, Win, Compete, Compete, Robot, Robot Compete, Win, Win, Robot, Compete, Win, ...

Sprinkled among those sentiments are the occasional mentions of the reasons Dean, and the other folks we respect founded the program.

Additionally, while I can't see into the hearts of anyone else, I get a sense that most of the folks who want a longer build season, want it because it strengthens only the on-the-field, crown-a-game-winner part of the program; and that their main motivation isn't using that part of the program to strengthen the entire program.

Blake

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

I agree, but I personally believe that removing access restrictions to the robots will make the FRC better. ...

I think it would be more precise to say that you think removing access restrictions would make one part of the total FIRST FRC program better. Would that be correct? If I'm mistaken please let me know - I don't want to put my words into your mouth.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

If our ultimate goal is to make robotics into a spectator sport, ...

I'm pretty sure that making robotics into a spectator sport is explicitly not FIRST's primary goal. Sure, moving in that direction is certainly a tool FIRST uses, but I'm pretty sure that it's only a means and not an end. As such, it should only be allowed to support the true goals of the program. Investing in making FIRST a spectator sport should be justified by whether, and how much it contributes to FIRST's primary mission, minus its costs and/or any direct or indirect harm it does to that primary mission.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

... There is considerable supporting data supporting this position: ...
Next if we look at team capability growth through the season, we can see a clear trend of how teams improve the more they use their robots. ... Teams get better if they spend time using their robots.

I think your point about teams becoming better able to play the game if they spend time with their robots is 100% correct, if you are talking about the time they spend at competitions. That is absolutely not the same thing as talking about spending an extra week or so of build-season time with their robots. Adding another week to the build season would have some effect, but actually being at a competition is a "forcing function" that simply does not exist earlier in the current process.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

... Lastly, lets explore the statement that the best teams will always probably win regardless of the constraints. The data also supports the fact that this is almost certainly true.

According to FIRST, the "best" teams are the ones that earn the Chairman's awards and the Engineering Inspiration awards. The teams that win on the field are congratulated and their accomplishments are celebrated, but I don't think FIRST says they are the best teams. Are you suggesting that FIRST/we abandon or change that attitude?

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

... but I thought FIRST wanted to change the world. ...

I think FIRST (still) does; and I think that FIRST is using a competition and other tools to accomplish that. However, using/including competitions is different from *being* competitions.

Originally Posted by MrForbes

... you can build a robot in 3 days. You can also take all the time available up to competition day, and not finish a robot. I'd like to know how you could change rules in a way that would affect teams' work habits, to give a better outcome?

Agreed

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

... This is a COMPETITION. ...

Anyone who has used CD for a while knows this sentiment, and knows both the mistakes and the truths it embodies. FIRST is a multi-faceted program that uses competitions. Neither FIRST as a whole, nor the FRC part of FIRST *is* a competition. Regardless of its somewhat unfortunate title, FRC includes a competition, but it most definitely was not created to crown on-the-field winners.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

This whole debate needs to shift to a discussion about how we can encourage a spirit of continuous improvement amongst all teams in the FRC. ...

Dang, I was hoping it would shift to being a discussion about how we can encourage continuous inspiration.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

... The 6 week build period is a myth. ... it is a 365 day program.
Anyone who is even moderately serious about achieving any success in this sport must admit this and act accordingly. ...

I personally would act to make the 6 week build period into reality, because I wouldn't want to over-emphasize the robot. Other people would probably act differently.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

... There are very few practices like this in any other machine sport. ...

I thought we were talking about a program that measures success by counting the numbers of newly inspired students, and didn't realize that were talking about machine sports.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

... These machine access rules are really just an extrapolation of a rule which was arbitrarily put in place in a failed attempt to force fairness in the league over 20 years ago. ...

I would be surprised if Woodie would agree with that statement, but you might be right.

Yes

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

The key thing is giving teams access to their robot AFTER they compete.

Jim - This conclusion was my take-away from the data in your posts also. Hence my comment about the differences between build time before a competition, and the effects of actually being at a competition.

Originally Posted by MrForbes

Is that a topic for another thread?

Probably.